Creative thinking has become a headline-skill for the jobs of tomorrow, yet psychologists still wrestle with what it really entails and even more crucially how it is assessed. Research has mostly celebrated the noisy part—brainstorming—while treating evaluation as an afterthought. A new study from Durham and Newcastle Universities, however, finds that the minds that gush the boldest ideas are also the ones that most quickly recognise the winner.
One Experiment, Two Classic Tests
As part of the new study that is published in Thinking & Reasoning journal, one hundred thirty-seven British undergraduates completed two gold-standard tests. In the Alternate Uses Task (AUT), they listed as many novel uses as possible for a pen and an egg carton. In the second one, the Remote Associates Test (RAT), they were invited to find the single word linking three seemingly unrelated words (opera – dish – hand, the answer is soap). Scores on every facet of divergent thinking—fluency, originality and elaboration—predicted success on the convergent RAT. Idea generation and idea selection, long viewed as rivals, rose and fell together.
That result clarifies a debate that has simmered since the 1950s. Creativity was supposed to be a two-step dance, but hard evidence for a tight bond between the steps was thin. By using a larger sample, removing time pressure and relying on transparent statistics, the new study cuts through the noise: creative quality is baked into creative quantity.
Classrooms: Beyond the Brainstorm Wall
Curricula that teach 21st-century skills often end with sticky-note storms. The new evidence urges educators to add structured appraisal to every project. Ask pupils not only to propose wild uses for a brick, but to defend which one actually solves a problem. The approach dovetails with the recently introduced PISA Creative-Thinking Assessment, which scores both idea volume and idea choice.
Workplaces: Rethink Hiring and Promotion
Many firms still equate inventiveness with sheer output—“Give me 30 ways to improve our app.” Such one-sided auditions miss candidates who balance novelty with judgement. A simple fix: follow the brainstorm with a “shark-tank” round where applicants refine and rank their best idea. The same logic can refresh promotion reviews.
Innovation Policy: Measure What Matters
Governments and R&D chiefs count patents filed or pitches submitted, but rarely track conversion from idea to product. The study’s message is blunt: add metrics of quality—adoption rate, social impact, return on investment—to the dashboard. Regions that score high on both breadth and precision could become the next innovation clusters.
AI Tool-builders: Apply Smart Filters
Generative-AI tools boast speed, yet users drown in average ideas. Embedding convergent checkpoints—ranking algorithms, peer-review prompts, constraint toggles—can surface winners sooner and teach users the same mental dance the Durham and Newcastle team observed.
How This Differs From Design Thinking
Design Thinking’s five-stage loop already alternates between divergence and convergence, but systematic tests of its impact are still relatively sparse. The new study digs inside one brain and shows that the very same cognitive horsepower fuels both the sticky-note surge and the laser-focus pick. Roles can still be split (“wild dreamer” vs. “critical friend”), yet the data suggest the capacities are intertwined in each person and can be co-trained, co-assessed and, crucially, co-measured.
Choosing Wisely
Even with the study’s acknowledged limitations, the evidence tilts the scales: creativity is not just what you can imagine, but what you can recognise as worthwhile. Automation can already flood the world with possibilities; the new competitive edge lies in choosing wisely.
Beyond brainstorming lies the quieter, sharper skill of selection — and that may prove the stronger half of creativity. That insight should ripple from primary classrooms to boardrooms and policy white papers, ensuring that the next generation of ideas is not just many, but mighty.
